| Ashe v. Swenson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 13, 1969 Decided April 6, 1970 | |
| Full case name | Bob Fred Ashe, Petitioner v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden |
| Citations | 397 U.S. 436 (more) 90 S. Ct. 1189; 25 L. Ed. 2d 469; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 54 |
| Holding | |
| Retrying an acquitted defendant for the same offense by citing a different victim is an unconstitutional double jeopardy. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Stewart, joined by Douglas, White, Marshall |
| Concurrence | Black |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Douglas, Marshall |
| Dissent | Burger |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464 (1958) | |
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a state from relitigating a question already decided in favor of a defendant at a previous trial. Here, the guarantee against double jeopardy enforceable through the Fifth Amendment provided that where the defendant was acquitted of robbing one victim, the government could not prosecute the criminal defendant in a second trial for a different victim in the same robbery.
Background
After a group of masked robbers committed armed robbery of a poker game in Lee's Summit, Missouri, Bob Fred Ashe was indicted on six separate counts of committing an armed robbery of one of the six players. At trial, a jury returned a general verdict of not guilty "due to insufficient evidence". Six weeks later, Ashe was brought to trial for the robbery of another of the poker players. This time, a prosecution witness who did not confidently identify Ashe as a robber was not called, and several witnesses expressed greater confidence that Ashe was the robber.[1] At the conclusion of the trial, Ashe was found guilty and sentenced to thirty-five years.
The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding no former jeopardy violation. After the federal district court denied habeas corpus relief, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari and concluded from the record of the prior trial that the "single rationally conceivable issue in dispute before the jury was whether [Ashe] had been one of the robbers. And the jury by its verdict found that he had not. The federal rule of law, therefore, would make a second prosecution for the robbery . . . wholly impermissible."
Because the first jury, by its verdict, had rejected the claim that Ashe was one of the robbers, the Supreme Court held that the State could not "constitutionally hail him before a new jury to litigate that issue again."
See also
Further reading
- Deason, M. C. Jr. (1970). "Rule of Collateral Estoppel Embodied in the Fifth Amendment Guaranty against Double Jeopardy". Cumberland-Samford Law Review. 1: 355. ISSN 0045-9275.
- Schaefer, Walter V. (1970). "Unresolved Issues in the Law of Double Jeopardy: Waller and Ashe". California Law Review. 58 (2): 391–404. doi:10.2307/3479664. JSTOR 3479664.
References
- ↑ Edmiston, Robert Ruyle (1971). "Ashe v. Swenson: A New Look at Double Jeopardy". Tulsa Law Review. 7 (1): 68–73.
External links
Works related to Ashe v. Swenson at Wikisource- Text of Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)